ReconfigBehSci. (2020, November 10). Now #scibeh2020: Presentation and Q&A with Martha Scherzer, senior risk communication and community engagement (RCCE) Consultant at the World Health Organization https://t.co/Gsr66BRGcJ [Tweet]. @SciBeh. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1326148149870809089

I wonder if it would be useful to distinguish between research and scholarship, where formal research is but one type of scholarly practice?

If we look at a journal as a channel for promoting scholarship then there's no reason that we can't include essays as a category of writing.

Saltz, E., Leibowicz, C., & Wardle, C. (2020). Encounters with Visual Misinformation and Labels Across Platforms: An Interview and Diary Study to Inform Ecosystem Approaches to Misinformation Interventions. ArXiv:2011.12758 [Cs]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2011.12758

You cannot practice public health without engaging in politics. (2021, March 29). The BMJ. https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/03/29/you-cannot-practice-public-health-without-engaging-in-politics/

Impact of Social Sciences. ‘How to Run an Academic Writing Retreat and Bring the Campus Back Together’, 9 November 2020. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/11/09/how-to-run-an-academic-writing-retreat-and-bring-the-campus-back-together/.

GCS. ‘GCS Launches New Behaviour Change Guide’. Accessed 8 February 2021. https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/news/gcs-launches-new-behaviour-change-guide/.

r/BehSciResearch—Inertia in academic priorities. (n.d.). Reddit. Retrieved June 16, 2020, from https://www.reddit.com/r/BehSciResearch/comments/h9cilq/inertia_in_academic_priorities/

Health Psychology Exchange

Urbina, A. (2020, May 8). What do we know about University Academics’ Mental Health? A Systematic Literature Review. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/37jhr

agency, voice research community

SocArXiv - an upcoming open archive of papers in the social sciences modeled on arxiv.org.

https://twitter.com/socarxiv

Hello. This is my first entry. Dario and I plan to create a podcast that has three elements:

1) A formal exploration of the podcast form using our own podcast as a case study. 2) A discussion around academic research and the podcast. 3) A discussion around the 'disruptive journal' featuring input from JMP contributors.

The aim is to construct a text that operates as a viable and valid piece of research and also is reflexive regarding the changing nature of academic research.

We will be talking in person late July following some leave and will be emailing disruptive JMP participants shortly to invite them to participate.

For now I listening to podcasts to prepare, and recommend the latest NPR Invisibilia episode on problem solving, and any episode of the brilliant Longford Podcast.

Scientists sharing knowledge! Naughty!

We believe that openness and transparency are core values of science. For a long time, technological obstacles existed preventing transparency from being the norm. With the advent of the internet, however, these obstacles have largely disappeared. The promise of open research can finally be realized, but this will require a cultural change in science. The power to create that change lies in the peer-review process.

We suggest that beginning January 1, 2017, reviewers make open practices a pre-condition for more comprehensive review. This is already in reviewers’ power; to drive the change, all that is needed is for reviewers to collectively agree that the time for change has come.